_____________________________Journal of Multidisciplinary Research____________________________
31
Journal of Multidisciplinary Research,
Vol. 6, No. 2, Summer 2014, 31-48.
ISSN 1947-2900 (print) • ISSN 1947-2919 (online)
Compilation Copyright © 2014 by St. Thomas University. All rights reserved.
Development and Evaluation of a Team Building
Intervention with a U.S. Collegiate Rugby Team:
A Mixed Methods Approach
Amber M. Shipherd
Eastern Illinois University
Itay Basevitch
The Florida State University
Kelly Barcza Renner
Franklin University
Kamau Oginga Siwatu
Texas Tech University
Abstract
The researchers conducted a two-phase mixed methods study to identify team cohesion
weaknesses in a collegiate rugby team and to determine if, and how, an innovative short-term
sport psychology intervention could facilitate cohesion. A Performance Enhancement Consultant
(PEC) spent the first 16 weeks of the season with a U.S. collegiate club rugby team collecting
quantitative and qualitative data on team cohesion. Based on the initial findings, the researchers
selected a challenge activity as an ideal way of addressing the team’s multiple cohesion
shortcomings in a single day workshop. Following the intervention, the PEC collected
quantitative and qualitative data at two different times: approximately one week following the
intervention and approximately ten weeks following the intervention. Data revealed significant
immediate and long-term increases in team cohesion following the intervention. Additionally,
athletes noted the intervention (a) provided them with effective techniques to utilize while
performing together, and (b) utilized an innovative design.
_____________________________Journal of Multidisciplinary Research____________________________
32
Keywords: team cohesion, rugby, mixed methods, college athletes
Introduction
Players, coaches, and other practitioners have often stated that team cohesion positively
affects performance (Carron, Colman, Wheeler, & Stevens, 2002; Loughead & Hardy, 2006).
While most team building interventions aim to enhance team performance by improving team
processes (Hardy & Crace, 1997), Carron and Spink (1993) created a team building framework
in which team cohesion is the outcome variable of primary interest. The focus of this study was to
enhance team cohesion through a short-term team building intervention.
The sport and exercise psychology literature defines cohesion as: “a dynamic process that
is reflected in the tendency of a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its
instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs” (Carron, Brawley,
& Widmeyer, 1998, p. 213). There are two types of cohesion: task and social cohesion. Task
cohesion is a group having a common goal or task that they are striving for, while social cohesion
is the motivation of a group of individuals to maintain and develop social relationships among
each other (Razafimbola, 2009).
Developing team cohesion is a dynamic process that involves numerous factors. Carron
(1982) developed a conceptual framework of team cohesion that practitioners frequently apply to
the sport and exercise setting. Researchers identified the following factors as antecedents
contributing to cohesion: environmental, personal, leadership, and group (Carron, 1982).
Environmental factors consist of elements such as the organizational system and the size of the
group. Widmeyer, Brawley, and Carron (1990) conducted a study of the effects of group size on
cohesion and found an inverse relationship between group size and cohesion. As the group size
increased, perceptions of cohesion decreased. Work output, anxiety, task-motivation (i.e.,
completion of group’s tasks), and affiliation motivation, or establishing and maintaining happy
relationships are personal factors. Individuals who perceive their team to have high task cohesion
also display a higher work output (Loughead & Hardy, 2006). Leadership factors consist of leader
behavior and leadership style. Multiple studies have found a positive relationship between
positive coaching behaviors and leadership style and both task and social cohesion (Loughead &
Hardy, 2006; Price & Weiss, 2013). Finally, group norms, roles, stability of the group, and
productivity are group factors that contribute to cohesion. Numerous studies have addressed the
importance of establishing group norms and roles to increase cohesion (Benson, Eys, Surya,
Dawson, & Schneider, 2013; Eys & Carron, 2001; Martin, Paradis, Eys, & Evans, 2013). Thus,
the literature on cohesion in sports teams has identified cohesive teams as having clear and
unambiguous roles, well-defined group norms, common goals, a group identity, effective
communication, group synergy, shared responsibility and accountability, trust, and respect
(Martin et al., 2013; Razafimbola, 2009; Yukelson, 1997).
Team building is one of the most effective methods of putting group dynamics theory and
research, specifically team cohesion, into practice (Gill & Williams, 2008; Martin et al., 2013).
Yukelson (1997) proposed a model for a direct approach to team building, consisting of an
assessment stage, education stage, brainstorming stage, and culminating in the implementation
stage. Yukelson recommends that, to conduct a more complete needs assessment, the consultant
should conduct observations and interview coaches, players, and support personnel to gather
_____________________________Journal of Multidisciplinary Research____________________________
33
information about the team. The education stage should consist of helping the athletes, coaches,
and support personnel gain an understanding of both sport psychology and team cohesion.
Yukelson then suggests the next stage be a brainstorming stage involving the sport psychology
consultant, athletes, coaches, and support personnel to develop awareness of what the team
needs to become more cohesive and more successful. Finally, the involved parties implement the
plan to improve cohesion as they have outlined in the brainstorming stage.
Research indicates a positive relationship between cohesion and athletic performance,
although the strength of this relationship is unclear. Carron et al. (2002) conducted a meta-
analysis with 46 articles on team cohesion in sport, and found a significant moderate-large
relationship between performance and both task and social cohesion. Carron et al. (2002) also
found a positive relationship between performance and both task and social cohesion. These
findings imply that team cohesion interventions should target both task and social cohesion.
In an attempt to explain the relationship between cohesion and performance, Carron and
Chelladurai (1981) claimed that type of sport could mediate the effect of cohesion on
performance. They contended that the relationship between cohesion and performance is
positive and stronger in highly interactive teams (e.g., basketball, soccer, football, volleyball,
rugby). Voight and Callahan (2001) conducted team building interventions with two separate
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division 1 women’s soccer teams. Athletes in
the study evaluated the direct team building approach that Yukelson (1997) proposed very
highly. Additionally, athletes reported increases in both individual and team performance
following the team building intervention. Therefore, the researchers elected to implement a
direct approach to team building, following Yukelson’s model, with the team in this study.
Research often has found short-term team building interventions in sport to be less
effective than long-term interventions, but often the circumstances or resources do not allow
practitioners or researchers to implement a comprehensive long-term intervention (Weinberg &
Williams, 2001). Therefore, the researchers were particularly interested in exploring whether
utilizing an innovative design could improve the effectiveness of short-term team building
interventions.
Purpose
The researchers had multiple purposes for conducting this research, based on Newman,
Ridenour, Newman, and DeMarco’s (2003) typology of research purposes. One purpose was to
inform the team’s athletes and coaching staff of the team’s weaknesses in cohesion. Another aim
was to measure change in team cohesion by testing if a short-term team building intervention
targeting the cohesion weaknesses the Performance Enhancement Consultant (PEC) identified
from Phase 1 could increase team cohesion both immediately following the intervention and at
the end of the season. The final purpose was to add to the knowledge base of team building
intervention effectiveness, and improve practice and influence change in developing and
implementing short-term team building interventions. The studies accomplished these purposes
through the following research questions:
_____________________________Journal of Multidisciplinary Research____________________________
34
1. To what extent do the quantitative and qualitative data converge to identify the
weaknesses in team cohesion and facilitate the design of the intervention?
2. Can a short-term sport psychology intervention utilizing the Team Building Race
design affect team cohesion in a U.S. collegiate club rugby team?
3. How does a short-term sport psychology intervention utilizing the Team Building
Race design affect team cohesion in a U.S. collegiate club rugby team?
4. In what ways do the qualitative data help explain the quantitative results?
Method
The PEC, who is a certified consultant through the Association of Applied Sport
Psychology (AASP) and has more than seven years of experience consulting with highly
interactive teams, including rugby, began working with the rugby team at the beginning of its
season. After meeting with the new coach, the PEC decided to spend the first 16 weeks collecting
data regarding team cohesion via observations, interviews, and additional quantitative measures.
The PEC then reserved the second 16 week period, which was the most competitive part of the
team’s season, for implementing services deemed necessary following the initial data collection
period.
Research Design
The researchers determined a two-phase embedded design was the most appropriate for
this study (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2006). They selected a mixed methods approach to gain a
more comprehensive picture of cohesion weaknesses, enhance the validity of the findings by
checking the results of the quantitative data against the results of the qualitative data, and guide
the development of the intervention. Collecting both quantitative and qualitative data separately
allowed the researchers to combine the strengths of the quantitative and qualitative approaches,
while minimizing the weaknesses associated with each method (Creswell, 2009). Additionally,
the design of Phase 2 allowed the researchers to “simultaneously ask confirmatory and
exploratory questions and therefore verify and generate theory in the same study” (Teddlie &
Tashakkori, 2009, p. 33). Results from the quantitative data allowed the researchers to determine
if a short-term team building intervention could facilitate team cohesion. The qualitative
component then allowed the researchers to better understand and interpret how the intervention
increased team cohesion, and why certain aspects of team cohesion increased more than others.
Participants
Nineteen male collegiate rugby players on one team and the team’s coach participated in
this study. Athletes were between the ages of 18 and 23 (M = 19.5) and reported having
between 0 and 7 years of experience competing in rugby (M = 2.3). Two athletes held formal
leadership positions on the team, ten athletes were returning to play from the previous year, and
nine athletes were in their first season with the team. The coach had more than four years of
playing and coaching experience, but was in his first season as head coach of this team. The
researchers utilized pseudonyms to ensure the anonymity of the participants.
_____________________________Journal of Multidisciplinary Research____________________________
35
Phase 1
Quantitative Data Collection
Procedures. Following Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, all 19 athletes
completed the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ; Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985)
during a team meeting towards the end of the first 16-week period.
Instrumentation. The researchers selected the GEQ to measure team cohesion, as it is
currently the best measure of cohesion in sport (Loughead & Hardy, 2006), and typically
researchers and practitioners alike use it to measure cohesion in Carron and Spink’s (1993) team
building framework. The GEQ is an 18-item self-report measure that contains four different
aspects of cohesion: individual attractions to the group-task (ATG-T), group integration-task
(GI-T), individual attractions to the group-social (ATG-S), and group integration-social (GI-S)
(Carron et al., 1985). Athletes respond to GEQ items on a 9-point Likert scale anchored by 1
(strongly disagree) and 9 (strongly agree), so higher scores represent stronger perceptions of
cohesion (Carron et al., 1985). Numerous studies have examined the psychometric properties of
the GEQ and have found both high reliability and validity (e.g., Brawley, Carron, & Widmeyer,
1987; Eyes & Carron, 2001; Li & Harmer, 1996; Widmeyer, Brawley, & Carron, 1990).
Qualitative Data Collection
Procedures. The PEC collected qualitative data via ten observations during eight
practices and two games, and seven face-to face interviews with six athletes and one coach. The
PEC deemed an ethnographic perspective the most appropriate because the purpose of this study
was to inform constituencies of the cohesion weaknesses in this particular group of athletes.
Observations. The PEC took a participant as observer role while conducting
observations, thus the observation role was secondary to the role of consultant (Creswell, 2009).
Observations took place on the team’s rugby field, for both practices and games. The coach was
aware of the specific purpose for conducting the observations. However, the PEC only told the
athletes that the PEC would be observing practices and games to gather information to improve
the team’s performance. Furthermore, to reduce social desirability bias, the athletes did not know
the purpose of the observations was to gather information regarding team cohesion. Eight
practice observations lasted approximately one hour and took place over the span of two months.
The PEC conducted two observations during the team’s games: These observations lasted
approximately two hours each and took place two weeks apart. During practice observations, the
PEC sat on the bleachers next to the team or stood on the field with the team, and wrote
extensive field notes. During game observations, the PEC wore the same attire as the coach, and
stood on the sideline with the team, writing field notes. The protocol for the field notes consisted
of multiple pages of notes divided into segments for descriptive notes, reflective notes, and
demographic information (Creswell, 2009).
Interviews. The PEC conducted seven interviews with six athletes and one coach.
Interviews with the players lasted between 15 and 40 minutes (M = 25.1), and the interview
with the coach lasted one hour. The PEC used stratified purposive sampling to ensure she
conducted interviews with veterans and novices, starters and non-starters, and leaders and non-
leaders. The researchers utilized informal conversation interviews to begin building rapport with
_____________________________Journal of Multidisciplinary Research____________________________
36
the athletes and coach and to ensure spontaneous responses (Patton, 2002). The PEC conducted
interviews with athletes before, during, or after practice on the rugby field. The PEC conducted
interviews out of hearing distance from other athletes and the coach to protect confidentiality.
The PEC was simultaneously conducting short meetings with players’ in the same setting to build
rapport. Thus, the PEC did not reveal the topic of the interview to other athletes or to the coach.
The interview with the coach took place on the rugby field after a practice. Interviews began with
an open-ended question, such as, “Please tell me about the team this season,” and responses led
to follow-up questions more specific to team cohesion, such as, “Can you give an example when
the team was not able to perform well together?” or “What do you mean when you say the team
is divided?” The PEC did not tape-record or videotape the interviews so athletes would feel more
comfortable disclosing information. However, the PEC did take extensive notes, and thus
paraphrased answers. Finally, the PEC recorded direct quotations only when possible and
necessary.
Results and Discussion
Quantitative. The researchers screened the quantitative data using SPSS v17.0; there
were no missing values or outliers identified, nor were there violations of normality. Following the
data screening, the researchers calculated descriptive statistics to examine the data and identify
potential patterns. Means and standard deviations of the four GEQ subscales were on the low
end of the 9-point Likert scale (see Table 1).
Table 1
Phase 1 and 2 Descriptives for GEQ Subscales
Phase 1
Phase 2 Time 1
Phase 2 Time 2
Subscale
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
GIT
3.96
0.97
4.92
0.81
6.76
0.5
GIS
5.07
1.38
6.07
1.25
7.46
0.82
ATGT
2.85
0.74
5.92
0.46
7.25
0.44
ATGS
3.04
1.11
5.03
0.78
7.26
0.5
Qualitative. The PEC analyzed field notes and interview notes using the constant
comparative method to determine the cohesion weaknesses of this particular collegiate rugby
team. The PEC separated the text into meaningful units of information, and examined the data
for similarities and differences and then separated text into categories or themes (Teddlie &
Tashakkori, 2009). This process continued until the PEC grouped all text segments into themes
with maximum between-theme variation and minimum within-theme variation. Once no new
categories emerged, the PEC assumed saturation.
The researchers established trustworthiness through member checking, triangulation of
data sources, and investigator triangulation (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). The researchers
performed member checking by asking each participant they interviewed to read over the PEC’s
notes from the interview to verify that the PEC had recorded and interpreted correctly what the
interviewee had intended to say. In addition, they triangulated the data sources by collecting data
_____________________________Journal of Multidisciplinary Research____________________________
37
from multiple data sources (i.e., multiple interviews and observations). Both the PEC and a
doctoral student independently analyzed the data, and then discussed and agreed on the themes
to accomplish investigator triangulation. The independent analyses revealed a high degree of
consistency with respect to development of themes, and the researchers resolved disagreements
by questioning and challenging the appropriateness until they reached an agreement. Finally, the
researchers recorded thick descriptions of context to “provide evidence for the transferability of
interpretations and conclusions from QUAL investigations” (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009, p.
213).
Following these data analyses, the researchers compared results from both the qualitative
and quantitative data. The GEQ, observations, and interviews all revealed the team exhibited
weaknesses in both task and social cohesion. Specifically, the researchers identified the following
themes from the data as significant weaknesses: leadership, communication, role incongruity, and
lack of team identity and goals.
Leadership. All six athletes interviewed identified the lack of strong leadership as a team
weakness. The coach, as well as four of the six athletes the researchers interviewed, described
this weakness in leadership as resulting from the team composition, pointing out that the team
consisted of many new players and very few veteran athletes. Younger athletes also described how
they felt there were no veteran athletes they could look up to and emulate on the team. The PEC
also observed a lack of strong leadership was a recurring theme as well. The PEC noted that
during team huddles in both practices and games, athletes frequently looked around at each
other, as if waiting for someone else to begin speaking, or give instructions. During practices,
athletes would rarely offer to help new teammates learn the game or style of play, unless directed
to by the coach. The PEC also observed that when mistakes occurred during either practices or
games, the leaders did not attempt to motivate the athletes to continue putting forth effort.
Communication. Another theme that all six athletes and the coach identified as a
significant team weakness was lack of effective communication. During games, athletes described
when one teammate attempted to pass the ball to another teammate, two teammates then tried
to catch the ball at the same time, and the other team recovered the ball. The PEC also observed
several instances during games when an athlete would attempt to pass the ball without looking to
another teammate, only to find the teammate was in another location on the field, resulting in
another mistake. Additionally, in both games, the PEC observed athletes arguing with each other
over which plays to run during games, and any verbal communication the PEC overheard taking
place on the field was typically negative, such as “No! How could you drop that pass?” Only one
in approximately every ten comments heard in practices or games were either positive or
instructional.
Role incongruity. During the interview, the coach indicated that other than the team
captain, athletes did not have specific roles on the team. He suggested the veteran athletes
should “know their role.” Both veteran and rookie athletes stated they were not aware of what
their role was within the team in general, and many athletes said they were not aware of their
role even on offense, on defense, or in specific game plays. The PEC observed the coach giving
different athletes the same roles and responsibilities during specific plays in seven of the eight
practices the PEC observed. Athletes described this as “very confusing.” Ryan, a veteran athlete
said it was difficult to keep track of what everyone was supposed to be doing in every play, when
every time a specific play was practiced, he was supposed to be doing something different.
Rookies also indicated they felt confused because, when the coach substituted them during
_____________________________Journal of Multidisciplinary Research____________________________
38
games, the coach would instruct the player frequently to play a different position, making it
challenging for them to learn the game and the responsibilities of any given position.
Lack of team identity and goals. The coach described the team goal as making it to
Nationals. However, all six athletes the researchers interviewed indicated that not everyone on
the team seemed to be ‘on the same page.’ Ryan and Mike, two veteran athletes, described how
they felt some of the new athletes to the team were not concerned with winning at all and did
not understand the importance of being the best team in the state. Kevin, one of the younger
athletes, said some of the team leaders told him and some of the other rookies that the focus this
year would be to work on skill development. Yet another rookie, Andrew, stated the team did not
have a goal at all. Finally, Brent, a veteran athlete described the team make-up as “a bunch of
guys, not really a team.”
Once the researchers identified weaknesses in team cohesion, the PEC met with coaches,
athletes, and consulted with several other PECs as well to brainstorm the needs of the team to
become more cohesive and more successful. With the limited resources available, the PEC
planned one full day to implement a brief team building intervention with the entire team at the
very start of the second 16-week period. Throughout the remainder of the second 16-week
period, the PEC planned to continue to meet with athletes on an individual basis to provide
consulting services as necessary.
Intervention Development
The coach expressed he wanted the intervention to be fun, not feel like a workshop and
performed in an environment outside of the rugby field. Therefore, the researchers chose the
design, named ‘the Team Building Race,’ as an ideal way to address multiple areas of weaknesses
in a single day workshop (Barcza et al., 2009). The PEC chose the specific activities during the
workshop to target the weaknesses a group of PECs with years of both playing and consulting
experience with highly interactive teams identified from Phase 1. The researchers previously
utilized the chosen activities in various past team building workshops or interventions. The PEC’s
chosen activities represented obstacles and challenges the team was likely to face during its
competitive season (Janssen, 1999). The PEC put athletes into scenarios and situations targeting
team weaknesses that required them to work together and overcome their weaknesses to be
successful at the task. Previous research indicated that challenge activities, such as ropes courses
or the Team Building Race of this study, provide coaches and athletes with insight about
themselves and force teammates to communicate and work together under pressure to handle
obstacles and adversity in a shortened timeframe (Janssen, 1999). Activities such as the Team
Building Race increase teammate interaction outside of their sport environment (i.e., practices or
games) and promote team bonding and togetherness, which is an important aspect of the group
environment (Paradis & Martin, 2012).
The team’s PEC, along with several other sport psychology graduate students with
experience working with athletes, led the different activities. One graduate student served as the
activity leader for each activity and led semi-structured discussion questions and topics for his or
her activity. The activity leaders asked any additional follow-up questions or other related
questions they deemed necessary. The PEC also instructed activity leaders to take field notes
during or after each group completed the activity, with specific focus on the task and social
cohesion topics the PEC previously identified as cohesion weaknesses.
_____________________________Journal of Multidisciplinary Research____________________________
39
At the beginning of the day, the PEC split the athletes into four groups of approximately
five players in each group. The PEC purposely assigned athletes to groups so each group
contained a mix of different positions (i.e., forwards and backs), a mix of playing status (i.e.,
starters and nonstarters), and evenly distributed team leaders among the different groups. The
PEC then gave the groups the following instructions:
“You will have six total stations to complete throughout the day today. Please complete
the stations as quickly and accurately as possible. In just a moment, each group will be
given an envelope with a map of the location of each station indicated by a dot, and a
clue that will lead you to your first station. After successful completion of each station,
you will be given an envelope with a clue to your next station.”
A description of the stations the PEC used during the intervention is below. Each station
ended with a discussion on how to apply the concepts and ideas learned to their rugby team.
Trust Obstacle Course
The researchers chose this station to target leadership and communication. They
nominated one group member to be the group leader. They blindfolded the remaining group
members, and instructed them to form a single file line and hold onto the shoulders of the person
in front of them. The activity leader informed the athlete leader, standing in a stationary position
outside of the obstacle course, to navigate the group successfully through the obstacle course.
Building with Roles
The researchers selected this station to target role congruity, leadership, and
communication. The activity leader assigned each group member a role and gave each athlete an
index card with specific instructions on how to build a block structure, according to their role.
The different roles included captain, veteran, rookie, and substitute(s). The activity leader
instructed the athletes to not discuss or share the information on their card with anyone else.
The captain’s card had the most detailed instructions and a picture of what the final structure
should look like. The veteran’s card included detailed instructions, but no picture. Both the
rookie and substitute’s cards included only very brief instructions. The substitutes began the
activity only observing on the side, while the other group members attempted to build the
structure. Halfway through the task, the activity leader instructed the captain and veteran that
they both sustained an injury and must leave the activity. The substitutes took their places
building the structure. The sport psychology graduate student leading the activity observed if the
group members worked together to help each other complete the task, and if the two “injured”
group members continued to help their teammates from the side.
Human Pedestal
The researchers selected this station to address communication, leadership, and role
congruity. The activity leader instructed group members to lie down on their backs and form a
circle with their feet in the middle and straight up in the air to form a pedestal. The activity
_____________________________Journal of Multidisciplinary Research____________________________
40
leader then placed a bucket filled with water on top of their feet. The activity leader instructed
group members to take off the shoes of the teammate to their right without standing up, and
without receiving assistance from any other group member. The activity leader instructed some
groups that completed the task easily to then put their teammates’ shoes back on in the same
fashion.
Commitment Egg Relay
The researchers chose this station to address communication. The activity leader paired
group members up and then gave the pairs separate instructions for the activity. The activity
leader told one member from each pair that the activity was a competition and that the goal was
to beat all the other pairs. The activity leader told the second member from each pair that they
should complete the task with minimal commitment; they should not try very hard, should make
mistakes frequently, but should not let their partner know they were trying to fail. The activity
leader provided each partner with a spoon: The first partner ran up a hill carrying the egg behind
his back and then transferred the egg to the second partner, who completed the same task.
Role Understanding through Artwork
The researchers selected this station to target role congruity. The activity leader provided
group members pens, crayons, and paper, and instructed the athletes to draw a symbol or picture
to represent best their role on the team. Upon completion, the activity leader then instructed
group members to explain to the group why they chose to draw their image. The group then gave
each member feedback about why the image best represented his role on the team, or why
another image might be a better representation. The activity leader asked group members if they
felt comfortable with their role on the team and understood their role on the team, and what
they could each contribute to the team.
Team Goals and Identity
After successful completion of the fifth station, each group’s final clue led them back to
the location where they had begun the day, where the coach and PEC were waiting. At this
point, the PEC led the whole team in a debriefing of the day’s activities, primarily focusing on
how they could apply the skills and concepts they learned in the activities to the sport of rugby.
The PEC also aided the team in formulating concrete process and performance goals for the
spring season. Last, the PEC discussed the importance of creating a team identity, and the team
elected to create a team motto it repeated at the end of every huddle during both games and
practices.
Phase 2
Quantitative Data Collection
Procedures. The PEC collected both quantitative and qualitative data at two different
points in time. Data the PEC collected during Time 1 occurred approximately one week
_____________________________Journal of Multidisciplinary Research____________________________
41
following the intervention; data the PEC collected during Time 2 occurred approximately ten
weeks following the intervention.
Questionnaire. All 19 athletes completed the GEQ during a team meeting in a classroom
five days after the intervention (Time 1). The PEC again administered the GEQ to the athletes
approximately ten weeks after the intervention, at the end of their spring season (Time 2).
Qualitative Data Collection
Observations. The PEC observed two practices during Time 1, within one week following
the intervention. The PEC collected data for Time 2 during the last month of the team’s season,
between six and ten weeks following the intervention. The PEC observed nine practices and
three games during Time 2 data collection. The PEC again took a participant as observer role
while conducting observations on the team’s rugby field for both practices and games. The PEC
did not tell the athletes the observations were specifically to gather data regarding team cohesion.
The PEC’s practice observations lasted approximately one hour, and the PEC’s game
observations lasted approximately two hours each. The PEC completed the same observation
protocol as in Phase 1.
Interviews. The PEC interviewed four players during Time 1, within one week following
the intervention. The PEC collected the data for Time 2 during the last two weeks of the team’s
season, between 10 and 12 weeks following the intervention. During Time 2, the PEC conducted
face-to-face interviews with 8 players and 1 coach. The PEC’s interviews with athletes lasted
between 15 and 45 minutes (M = 28.4), and the interview with the coach lasted 30 minutes.
The PEC used stratified purposive sampling to interview only athletes whose scores on the GEQ
reflected the largest or smallest increases in team cohesion. Additionally, the PEC used stratified
purposive sampling to select veterans and novices, starters and non-starters, and leaders and non-
leaders. The PEC utilized the general interview guide approach to keep the interviews focused on
the topic of team cohesion, but to allow the PEC more flexibility and to still maintain a
conversational tone (Patton, 2002). The PEC conducted athlete interviews before, during, or
after practice on the rugby field. The PEC’s interview with the coach took place on the rugby
field after a practice. The PEC’s interviews with the athletes during Time 1 began with the
question, “Have you noticed any changes within the team?” The PEC then asked athletes follow-
up questions, such as, “What do you think contributed to these changes?” The PEC’s interviews
with athletes during Time 2 began with the question, “Tell me about the team at this point in the
season.” The PEC then asked follow-up questions to attempt to understand and clarify how and
why the team cohesion had improved, such as, “What do you think led to the better
communication?” or “How have the relationships between players improved?” The PEC did not
tape-record or videotape interviews to help the athletes feel more comfortable disclosing
information, but the PEC took extensive notes, paraphrased most answers, and recorded direct
quotations only when possible and necessary.
Results
Quantitative. The researchers screened the quantitative data using SPSS v17.0 and did
not identify missing values, outliers, or any violations of normality. Following the data screening,
the researchers calculated mean scores for all four factors of the GEQ. See Table 1 for means and
_____________________________Journal of Multidisciplinary Research____________________________
42
standard deviations of the GEQ subscales. The researchers conducted a MANOVA to test the
effect of the intervention on cohesion over time. Results revealed a significant time effect on
cohesion (see Figure 1) F(8, 104) = 24.90, p < .001. Follow-up univariate ANOVAs also
revealed significant differences across time on GIT, F(2, 54) = 62.88, p < .001, GIS, F(2, 54) =
19.91, p < .001, ATGT, F(2, 54) = 305.37, p < .001, and ATGS, F(2, 54) = 122.32, p < .001.
Figure 1. GEQ means by factor across Phase 1, Phase 2 Time 1, and Phase 2 Time 2.
Qualitative. The researchers again analyzed the qualitative field notes and interview
notes using the constant comparative method. As in Phase 1, the researchers conducted member
checking, triangulation of data sources, and investigator triangulation, and provided thick
descriptions of context to determine trustworthiness. The GEQ, observations, and interviews
revealed the team increased in both task and social cohesion. Specifically, the following themes
emerged as significant changes resulting from the intervention: effective communication,
strategies to recover from mistakes, better understanding of roles, and clear team goals. Another
theme that emerged through the interview was the effectiveness of the intervention design.
Effective communication. In interviews one week following the intervention and at the
end of the season, athletes described how the intervention provided them with more effective
means of communicating with each other, especially while under pressure. In an interview one
week after the intervention, Chris, a veteran athlete, described how previously the team
communicated by yelling at each other. He said the team attempted to use more instructional
comments during practice scrimmages, such as, “Everyone shift left.” Chris said when he felt
himself getting frustrated at a teammate for making a mistake on the field, instead of yelling, he
would take several deep breaths to calm himself, then walk over to the athlete individually and
try to help him understand what could be done differently or better the next time to avoid that
mistake. The PEC heard instructional comments more frequently than negative comments in
eight of the nine practices and in all three games the PEC observed at the end of the season.
Another rookie, Steven, noted that, while the team had improved a lot from the workshop, there
_____________________________Journal of Multidisciplinary Research____________________________
43
was still a long way to go. Steven said communication amongst teammates became more positive
and instructional, but that communication from the coach to the athletes was still
overwhelmingly negative.
Strategies to recover from mistakes. Prior to the intervention, the PEC observed several
occasions during both practices and games, in which one mistake then led to either more
mistakes being made or to one athlete yelling at another athlete. In a practice one week after the
intervention, the PEC noticed a rookie athlete dropped a ball during a critical play that could
have led to a try (i.e., a score) against his team. Ryan, one of the veteran athletes ran up to the
rookie, handed him the dropped ball, and said, “It’s cool, just make sure your hands are out and
ready next time. Let’s just restart right here.” When the PEC asked Ryan about this incident after
practice, he said that in particular, the ‘Human pedestal’ activity from the intervention had made
him aware that before he yelled at a teammate for doing something wrong, he should put himself
in the teammate’s shoes and consider what feedback would be the most effective to remedy the
situation. Two other veteran athletes also described using breathing techniques they learned
during the Human Pedestal station to calm themselves when they felt frustrated with a
teammate. Ten weeks after the intervention, the PEC also observed multiple instances in
practices when a veteran player called for a huddle following a mistake before running the next
play. In an interview at the end of the season, the coach also indicated that, while he still
observed mistakes, he felt there were fewer occasions when one athlete’s mistake would lead to
“everyone making mistakes.”
Better understanding of roles. Four rookie and two veteran athletes the PEC interviewed
at the end of the season also believed the intervention led to a better understanding of everyone’s
role on the team in general. In an interview one week after the intervention, the coach said he
did not realize the importance of giving each athlete a role and making each athlete feel as if they
brought something to the team. At the next practice, the PEC observed the coach designating
specific roles and responsibilities to the veteran athletes, such as, “On defense, I want you calling
all the plays.” The coach did not give rookie athletes specific roles, but when interviewed, they
said the veteran athletes helped them to understand the best way they could contribute to the
team. Adam, a rookie athlete, described how prior to the intervention he was not sure what he
could contribute to the team because he was not a starter, but that several activities during the
intervention and several conversations with veteran athletes helped him have a better
understanding of how he could help, even from the bench.
Clear team goals. The PEC observed both the team captain, Eric, and another veteran
athlete, Chris, monitoring and reminding teammates of the team goals at practices. Additionally,
three of the rookie athletes stated they felt comfortable and more prepared, knowing the
direction the team was heading and what is necessary to get there. In an interview one week
following the intervention, the coach also discussed how he felt that working backwards from the
team’s ultimate goal of reaching Nationals and setting the process goals really made a difference
in the amount of effort the athletes were putting into every practice. He stated, “The guys
knowing what needs to be done every day seems to be holding them more accountable.” Mark, a
rookie athlete, also said that setting the process goals enabled himself and his teammates to know
clearly what was expected of them on a daily basis.
Fun design. Athletes also reported that the design of the intervention helped make the
day seem more fun for them. Three of the four athletes interviewed one week following the
intervention indicated that when the coach first told them they would need to arrive on campus
_____________________________Journal of Multidisciplinary Research____________________________
44
on a Saturday for an ‘event,’ they were afraid they would be doing something tedious, such as
watching film all day long. The athletes described that they were still wary once they arrived on
campus and heard they would be participating in team building but that they were intrigued after
the PEC explained the design and purpose of the workshop. They also said the workshop was
very fun to participate in, and they would like to participate in a workshop the PEC designed
more often. Jake, a veteran athlete, stated the intervention was very enjoyable because it
appealed to their competitive side, yet teammates had to work together in activities other than
rugby. Furthermore, five athletes the PEC interviewed during Time 2 indicated having more fun
with each other outside of rugby and that socializing with each other outside of rugby functions
made them like their teammates better as friends. Dan, a rookie athlete, even said he thought the
whole workshop was “just for fun,” until the PEC debriefed the team at the end of the day and he
realized what he and his teammates had learned that they could then use on the rugby field.
Discussion
One purpose of this study was to inform constituencies, primarily the coaches and
athletes of a particular U.S. collegiate men’s rugby team, of the team’s weaknesses in cohesion, in
order to develop an effective intervention targeting the team’s weaknesses in cohesion. The
researchers addressed this purpose through research question one: To what extent do the
quantitative and qualitative data converge to identify the weaknesses in team cohesion and
facilitate the design of an intervention for a U.S. collegiate rugby team? Results from the GEQ,
observations, and interviews the PEC collected during Phase 1 all revealed the team exhibited
weaknesses in both task and social cohesion. Specifically, the researchers identified the following
as significant cohesion weaknesses: leadership, communication, role incongruity, and lack of
team identity and goals. The researchers selected the Team Building Race design of the
intervention as an ideal way to address these multiple areas of weaknesses in a single day
workshop, and the researchers chose the specific activities to target the identified weaknesses.
Another purpose of this study was to measure change in team cohesion, by testing if a
short-term team building intervention targeting the team’s cohesion weaknesses the PEC
identified from Phase 1, could increase team cohesion both immediately following the
intervention, and at the end of the season. The researchers accomplished this purpose through
research question two: Can a short-term sport psychology intervention utilizing the Team
Building Race design affect team cohesion in a U.S. collegiate club rugby team? The researchers
noted significant immediate and long-term increases in team cohesion (see Figure 1) from the
data. While it is not definitive that changes in cohesion were due to the intervention, both coach
and athletes attributed the increased cohesion to the intervention. The cohesion increase and
qualitative results provide support that the intervention at least partially contributed to the
increased cohesion.
Although both coach and all athletes the PEC interviewed at the end of the season still
attributed increases in cohesion to the intervention, other variables could have influenced or
contributed to the changes in cohesion. For example, several athletes sustained injuries during
the season, and while they were still a part of the team and continued to attend during practices
and games, they were not participating during practices or games. In addition, the team’s PEC
continued to work with several athletes individually throughout the season, which could have
provided those athletes with some skills or techniques they utilized with the rest of the team.
_____________________________Journal of Multidisciplinary Research____________________________
45
Since the PEC knew the design of the study and the overall intent and hypotheses, it is possible
the PEC could have been unintentionally biased when observing the team interactions to focus
on situations that demonstrated more cohesion. Another limitation was that the interviews were
not tape recorded or videotaped. Although the PEC performed member checking to ensure she
had correctly recorded and interpreted what the interviewees had said, it is possible the PEC
missed or incorrectly interpreted some interview information.
Martin, Carron, and Burke (2009) found that team building interventions lasting less
than two weeks had a non-significant impact on team cohesion, yet the single day team building
intervention utilized in this study did significantly increase team cohesion. However, it is
important to note this study, similar to other team cohesion in sport intervention studies, utilized
a single team pre-post design and did not include a control group. Despite the lack of a control
group, team cohesion studies in sport utilizing either a single team pre-post design or a quasi-
experimental design have produced moderate, positive effect sizes (Martin et al., 2009).
Although it is difficult to separate intervention effects from natural development, single team
pre-post and quasi-experimental designs remain a common format, especially for practitioners in
real-world settings (Barker, Mellalieu, McCarthy, Jones, & Moran, 2013). One reason this short-
term intervention worked so well with this team could be because of the large number of new and
young players on this team, as opposed to a team that has been together for a long period of time.
An additional aim was to add to the knowledge base of team building intervention
effectiveness, and improve practice and influence change in developing and implementing team
building interventions. The researchers addressed this purpose with research question three: How
does a short-term sport psychology intervention affect team cohesion in a U.S. collegiate rugby
team?; and research question four: In what ways do the qualitative data help explain the
quantitative results? The qualitative data revealed many of the changes in team cohesion
appeared to be the result of the skills and techniques the athletes and coach acquired during the
intervention.
Researchers and practitioners often have found sport psychology techniques positively
impact athlete and team performance (Weinberg & Gould, 2011). One reason this short-term
intervention might have been so effective with this team was because sport psychology services
were such a novel concept for the athletes. Nonetheless, the athletes who participated in the
short-term sport psychology intervention were able to learn and utilize numerous techniques
through this short-term intervention, such as goal setting and arousal regulation.
Athletes also reported the design of the intervention helped make the day seem more fun
for them. Therefore, it is possible the Team Building Race design could have contributed to the
effectiveness of the intervention. Researchers and practitioners found team building
interventions focusing on psychological skills training produce more positive results than do team
building interventions focused on interpersonal relations, or team building interventions focused
on a combination of psychological skills training and interpersonal relations training (Martin et
al., 2009). The Team Building Race design researchers utilized in this team building intervention
primarily focused on aspects of psychological skills training. Athletes also reported enjoying the
competitive nature of the intervention and how the intervention involved activities other than
rugby. Numerous college football teams have utilized competitive activities other than football
for successful team building (McCallum, 2001, as cited in Weinberg & Gould, 2011). Future
studies should incorporate a control group and continue to investigate the effectiveness of this
_____________________________Journal of Multidisciplinary Research____________________________
46
Team Building Race design for a short-term team building intervention with other highly
interactive teams.
References
Barcza, K. M., Sanchez, C. M., Lee, F. S., Boulware, W. A., Wade, B. R., & Renner, B. J. (2009,
September). Party of 60: Developing a team building retreat for a large number of participants.
Poster presented at the Association for Applied Sport Psychology Annual Conference,
Salt Lake City, UT.
Barker, J. B., Mellalieu, S. D., McCarthy, P. J., Jones, M. V., & Moran, A. (2013). A review of
single-case research in sport psychology 1997-2012: Research trends and future
directions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 25(1), 4-32.
Benson, A. J., Eys, M., Surya, M., Dawson, K., & Schneider, M. (2013). Athletes’ perceptions of
role acceptance in interdependent sports teams. The Sport Psychologist, 27(3), 269-281.
Brawley, L., Carron, A., & Widmeyer, W. (1987). Assessing the cohesion of teams: Validity of
the Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology. 9(3), 275-294.
Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sports groups: Interpretations and considerations. Journal
of Sport Psychology, 4(2), 123-128.
Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1998). The measurement of cohesiveness in
sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp.
213-226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Carron, A. V., & Chelladurai, P. (1981). Cohesion as a factor in sport performance. International
Review of Sport Sociology, 16(2), 2-41.
Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in
sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24(2), 168-188.
Carron, A. V., & Spink, K. S. (1993). Team building in an exercise setting. The Sport Psychologist,
7(1), 8-18.
Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to
assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 7(3), 244-266.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2006). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Eys, M. A., & Carron, A. V. (2001). Role ambiguity task cohesion, and task self-efficacy. Small
Group Research, 32(3), 356-373.
Gill, D. L., & Williams, L. (2008). Psychological dynamics of sport and exercise (3rd ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hardy, C. J., & Crace, R. K. (1997). Foundations of team building: Introduction to the team
building primer. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9(1), 1-10.
Janssen, J. (1999). Championship team building: What every coach needs to know to build a motivated,
committed, and cohesive team. Tucson, AZ: Winning the Mental Game.
Li, F., & Harmer, P. (1996). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Group Environment
Questionnaire with an intercollegiate sample. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
18(1), 49-63.
_____________________________Journal of Multidisciplinary Research____________________________
47
Loughead, T. M., & Hardy, J. (2006). Team cohesion: From theory to research to team building.
In S. Hanton & S. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature reviews in sport psychology (pp. 257-287).
Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Martin, L. J., Carron, A. V., & Burke, S. M. (2009). Team building interventions in sport: A
meta-analysis. Sport & Exercise Psychology Review, 5(2), 3-18.
Martin, L. J., Paradis, K. F, Eys, M. A., & Evans, B. (2013). Cohesion in sport: New directions for
practitioners. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 4(1), 14-25.
Newman, I., Ridenour, C. S., Newman, C., & DeMarco, Jr., G. M. P. (2003). A typology of
research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie
(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 167-188).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Paradis, K. F., & Martin, L. J. (2012). Team building in sport: Linking theory and research to
practical application. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 3(3), 159-170.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Price, M. S., & Weiss, M. R. (2013). Relationships among coach leadership, peer leadership, and
adolescent athletes’ psychosocial and team outcomes: A test of transformational
leadership theory. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 25(2), 265-279.
Razafimbola, S. (2009). The development and evaluation of a cohesion-building programme for a South
African male collegiate basketball team. Unpublished master’s thesis, Rhodes University,
Grahamstown, South Africa.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating
quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Voight, M., & Callaghan, J. (2001). A team building intervention program: Application and
evaluation with two university soccer teams. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24(4), 420-431.
Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (2011). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology (5th ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Weinberg, R. S., & Williams, J. M. (2001). Integrating and implanting a psychological skills
training program. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak
performance (pp. 347-377). Mountain View, CA: McGraw-Hill.
Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (1990). The effects of group size in sport.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12(2), 177-190.
Yukelson, D. (1997). Principles of effective team building interventions in sport: A direct services
approach at Penn State University. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9(1), 73-96.
About the Authors
Amber M. Shipherd, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Kinesiology
and Sports Studies at Eastern Illinois University. Dr. Shipherd holds a doctoral degree in
educational psychology and sport and exercise psychology from Texas Tech University, a master’s
in educational psychology and sport and exercise psychology from Florida State University, and a
bachelor’s in human development from the University of California – Davis. She has more than
seven years of performance enhancement consulting experience with teams and individuals and
is a certified consultant with the Association for Applied Sport Psychology. Dr. Shipherd’s
_____________________________Journal of Multidisciplinary Research____________________________
48
research interests revolve around athlete self-efficacy development, sport injury prevention and
rehabilitation, and peer leadership development.
Itay Basevitch, Ph.D., is with the Department of Educational Psychology and Learning
Systems at the Florida State University. Dr. Basevitch’s research interests revolve around
perceptual-cognitive skills (e.g., anticipation and decision-making, perception of attention and
exertion, and the link between psychological and physiological variables in sport and exercise
settings. Dr. Basevitch is a certified consultant with the Association for Applied Sport Psychology
and has several years of experience serving as a performance enhancement consultant with teams
and athletes.
Kelly Barcza Renner, Ph.D., is an adjunct professor with Franklin University in
Columbus, Ohio. She holds a doctoral degree in educational psychology from Florida State
University, a master’s in counseling from West Virginia University, and a bachelor’s degree in
psychology from Miami University. Dr. Barcza Renner swam competitively for Miami University
and currently provides counseling and performance enhancement consulting services to teams
and individuals in Ohio.
Kamau Oginga Siwatu, Ph.D., is an associate professor of educational psychology in the
Department of Educational Psychology and Leadership at Texas Tech University. Dr. Siwatu
holds a doctoral degree in educational psychology from the University of Nebraska – Lincoln, a
master’s in educational psychology from Florida State University, and a bachelor’s in psychology
from California State University, Dominguez Hills. Dr. Siwatu’s research agenda focuses on issues
related to teaching, learning, and diversity in K-12 educational settings.
Discussion Questions
1. How could this type of team building intervention be applied to the business setting or with
younger team members?
2. What are the challenges to implementing short-term team building interventions such as
this?
3. What other activities could be utilized to address the team’s weaknesses?
To Cite this Article
Shipherd, A. M., Basevitch, I., Barcza Renner, K., & Siwatu, K. O. (2014, Summer).
Development and evaluation of a team building intervention with a U.S. collegiate rugby
team: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 6(2), 31-48.
Copyright of Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (1947-2900) is the property of Journal of
Multidisciplinary Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.